In our theses it is stated that the demand for the immediate liberation of the colonies is just as "impracticable" (i.e., impracticable without a series of revolutions and unstable without socialism) under capitalism, as is national self-determination, the election of officials by the people, a democratic republic, etc.—and on the other hand, that the demand for the liberation of the colonies is nothing other than "recognition of the self-determination of nations."

The Polish comrades have not answered a single one of these arguments. They attempted to draw a distinction between "Europe" and the colonies. Only for Europe do they become inconsistent annexationists, refusing to abolish annexations once they have already been carried out. For the colonies, however, they proclaim an unconditional demand: "Out of the colonies!"

Russian socialists must demand: "Out of Turkestan, out of Khiva, out of Bukhara, etc.," but they will fall, it is said, into "utopianism," "unscientific" "sentimentality," and so forth, if they demand the same freedom of separation for Poland, Finland, Ukraine, etc. English socialists must demand: "Out of Africa, out of India, out of Australia," but not out of Ireland. By what theoretical grounds can one explain such a glaring and palpable inconsistency? This question cannot be evaded.

The principal "basis" of the opponents of self-determination is "impracticability." The same idea, with a slight shade of meaning, is expressed by the reference to "economic and political concentration."

It is clear that concentration also occurs through the annexation of colonies. The economic difference between the colonies and European peoples—at any rate, the majority of the latter—formerly consisted in the fact that the colonies were drawn into commodity exchange, but not yet into capitalist production. Imperialism has changed this. Imperialism is, among other things, the export of capital. Capitalist production is increasingly and more rapidly being transplanted to the colonies. It is impossible to wrest them from dependence on European financial capital. From the military point of view, as well as from the point of view of expansion, the separation of a colony is, as a general rule, practicable only with socialism, whereas under capitalism it is either an exception or possible only at the cost of a series of revolutions and uprisings both in the colony and in the metropolis.

In Europe, dependent nations are for the most part more capitalistically developed (although not all: the Albanians, many non-Russians of Russia) than in the colonies. But it is precisely this that provokes greater resistance to national oppression and annexations! It is precisely in consequence of this that the development of capitalism is more assured in Europe under any political conditions whatsoever, including separation, than in the colonies… "There," say the Polish comrades about the colonies (I, 4), "capitalism still has the task of the independent development of productive forces…". In Europe this is even more evident: capitalism in Poland, in Finland, Ukraine, Alsace, undoubtedly develops productive forces more powerfully, more rapidly, and more independently than in India, in Turkestan, in Egypt, and other colonies of the purest type. Neither independent, nor any other kind of development in a society of commodity production is possible without capital. In Europe, dependent nations have both their own capital and easy opportunity to obtain it on the most varied conditions. In the colonies, there is little or no native capital, and it cannot be obtained otherwise than on the condition of political subordination, in the atmosphere of financial capital. What, then, in light of all this, does the demand for the immediate and unconditional liberation of the colonies signify? Is it not clear that it is far more "utopian" in the vulgar, caricature-"Marxist" sense of the word "utopia," in which Messrs. Struve, Lenchi, Kunov employ it, and after them, unfortunately, the Polish comrades as well? By "utopianism" here is understood precisely a departure from the commonplace-ordinary, including everything revolutionary. But revolutionary movements of all kinds—including national movements—are more possible, more practicable, more persistent, more conscious, harder to overcome in the European environment than in the colonies.

Socialism, say the Polish comrades (I, 3), will "be able to give the undeveloped peoples in the colonies disinterested cultural aid, without dominating over them." Absolutely correct. But on what grounds can one assume that a large nation, a large state, having passed over to socialism, will not be able to attract a small oppressed nation in Europe by means of "disinterested cultural aid"? It is precisely the freedom of separation, which the Polish social-democrats "grant" to the colonies, that will attract to a union with large socialist states the small, but cultured and politically-demanding, oppressed nations of Europe; for a large state under socialism will mean: so many fewer hours of work per day, so many more rubles of wages per day. The laboring masses, freed from the yoke of the bourgeoisie, will with all their strength gravitate toward union and fusion with large and advanced socialist nations, for the sake of this "cultural aid," provided only that yesterday's oppressors do not offend the highly developed democratic feeling of self-respect of a long-oppressed nation, provided only that they grant it equality in all respects, including in state-building, in the experience of constructing "its own" state. Under capitalism this "experience" means wars, isolation, exclusiveness, narrow egoism of privileged small nations (Holland, Switzerland). Under socialism the laboring masses themselves will nowhere agree to exclusiveness on purely economic, aforementioned grounds, and the diversity of political forms, freedom of withdrawal from the state, experience in state-building—all this will, as long as any state has not yet withered away—be the basis of a rich cultural life, the guarantee of acceleration of the process of voluntary rapprochement and fusion of nations.

By singling out the colonies and counteroposing them to Europe, the Polish comrades fall into such a contradiction as immediately demolishes their entire erroneous argumentation.